Each year ACU hosts the Carmichael-Walling Lectures which features New Testament scholars. Last year's lectures were given by Dr. Margaret Mitchell, professor of New Testament and early Christian literature in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. This year's lectures, which I attended tonight, were given by Dr. Wayne A. Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies Emeritus in the Department of Religious Studies at Yale University.

Interestingly, Dr. Mitchell's and Dr. Meeks' lectures had some intriguing convergences. But first, a funny story about me at last year's lectures.

Dr. Mitchell had just finished her second lecture on "Looking for Biblical Literalism - in All the Wrong Places." I'll get to this lecture in a minute, but it had to do with how biblical texts were being used on the Internet. So, during the Q&A I raise my hand to ask a question.

I ask, "Dr. Mitchell, with the ubiquitous presence of bible search engines now on the Internet, I wonder about the hermeneutical effects this will have on how this generation will view the biblical text. I wonder if you could comment on the Googlification of the bible and how it will impact how we see and read the bible."

At this point I'm patting myself on the back. What a great, insightful question I just asked in front of all these people! The "Googlification of the bible"! What great stuff! (And, to be more serious, this actually is a half-decent question. What does happen to the bible when people primarily approach it using Keyword and Topical searches?)

Well, Dr. Mitchell says to me, "That's a great question. But if we think about it, this actually isn't a new thing. For example, think of the Eusebian Canon."

The Eusebian Canon????? What is she talking about????? Regardless, Dr. Mitchell is looking right at me, as is an entire room of bible professors and graduate students, waiting for me to nod my head sagely and say, "Ah, yes! The Eusebian Canon! Of course, I should have remembered that. Excellent point!"

But the trouble is, I don't know what the Eusebian Canon is. No clue. Which puts me in a bit of a pickle. I can't nod yes. I have a lot of friends in the audience who know I have no clue what the Eusebian Canon is. And if I nod yes, they will bust me for years for being a faker.

So, I can't nod yes. But Dr. Mitchell is still looking at me, expectantly, clearly not going on until I give her the nod. Seconds are passing and the question is just hanging there in the air:

"Think of the Eusebian Canon."

And I say the only thing I can say:

"I'm very sorry, but I can't."

And the room erupts in laughter.

And it quickly dawns on Dr. Mitchell that this lecture is open to the public and that people, like me, might actually be in attendance who have no freaking clue what the Eusebian Canon is. It really was a funny moment.

Okay, back to the serious stuff.

Dr. Mitchell's second lecture was fascinating. The premise of her talk, "In Search of Biblical Literalism," was to go looking for biblical literalism among the websites of the Religious Right. The idea was this. The Religion Right, biblical fundamentalists, claim that there is a clear, unambiguous, and literal reading of the bible. The bible simply says what it says. This is often called the "plain sense" of the text.

So Dr. Mitchell takes us on a tour of fundamentalist Internet sites analyzing, as we go, how these biblical "literalists" are using the bible. And what do you find? Well, you don't find biblical literalism. But you do find lots and lots of biblical interpretation. Specifically, when the "plain sense" of the text suits their position on war, or sex, or gambling then the fundamentalists trot out the "plain sense." But when there are no proof texts available they resort to cobbling together texts, assumptions, and argument. The point? The biblical literalists aren't so literal. Far from it. And if the literalists aren't being literal then perhaps there is no "plain sense" of the text. All text involves interpretation.

Tonight, in this year's lectures, Dr. Meeks made a similar point. Specifically, Dr. Meeks discussed how people misuse the metaphor "What does the Bible say?"

Meeks made the point that when I use the phrase "The Bible says..." I'm actually engaging in a bit of fakery (his word). The Bible doesn't speak. We speak. We interpret. Thus, to say "The Bible says..." is disingenuous for it is I, and not the Bible, who is speaking. To use the phrase "The Bible says..." is just a power play, a way of hiding my interpretation behind the authority of the Good Book. Paraphrasing Dr. Meeks, when we say "The Bible says..." we are simply hiding the true power we want to enforce on others: Our own.

To conclude, I think Mitchell's observation that a literal reading of the bible just doesn't exist jives nicely with Meeks' point that the phrase "The Bible says..." is often just a power play.

(And for the record, I did eventually find out what the Eusebian Canon was.

And yes, Dr. Mitchell, you make an excellent point.)